Re: spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: So this, then, must be legal?

["Glotmorf" <glotmorf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/23/02 at 10:07 PM Rob Speer wrote:

>On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 07:01:50PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
>> Quoth Rob Speer,
>>
>> > On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 06:30:59PM -0400, Wonko wrote:
>> >> Quoth Jonathan David Amery,
>> >>
>> >>>> It's part of the rules for me. The rules say I must abide by my
>club's
>> >>>> charter.
>> >>>>
>> >>> But they don't say that the club charter empowers you to take
>> >>> otherwise illegal actions with the rest of the gamestate.
>> >>
>> >> But it's not an illegal action - nowhere do the rules forbid it
>entirely.
>> >
>> > The Gremlin Fund is a part of the gamestate, so the default case
>> > applies.
>>
>> But the default case defers to all other rules, and the Charter Prop rule
>> puts me within the Jurisdiction of the LOOP Charter, superceding the
>Default
>> Case's restrictions.
>
>If that's the case, then Charters are far too powerful, and should
>require 2/3 of the votes to be created, not 1/3. Or better yet, not
>exist at all, since members of the club can change the Charter in such a
>way that they can change the gamestate at will.
>--
>Rob Speer

There's no existing mechanism for changing a charter prop, other than, I suppose, a proposal.  So if a club of a few people is trying to change its club to its own advantage, I somehow doubt more than half the players would agree.

						Glotmorf